Undying:

Exactly. Game looks like something GTX 10 series should run without a hitch. We are talking about RTX 30 series and upscaling to mantain higher fps. This is not the first game lately that runs like an ass without dlss. Will dlss be mandatory in the future to play games with gpus like 4090? What a joke. No wonder nvidia users are crying when game does not support it or have fsr instead 😀

Woulda, coulda. shoulda. Cross platform games often don't run better on consoles. FH5 runs at half the fps of its predecessor too, while not nearly looking twice as good. Game devs being wasteful with resources is not a new trend, unless your mind is like a sieve.

Undying:

Exactly. Game looks like something GTX 10 series should run without a hitch. We are talking about RTX 30 series and upscaling to mantain higher fps. This is not the first game lately that runs like an ass without dlss. Will dlss be mandatory in the future to play games with gpus like 4090? What a joke. No wonder nvidia users are crying when game does not support it or have fsr instead 😀

Well guess what, reduce in-game settings to medium and GTX 10 series should run just fine and the game would still look good. I guess games having more options to play with in term of Visual/FPS is very challenging to some people. It's like RDR2 having 40+ graphics settings and picking Ultra Settings @ 4K could still murder the FPS on the latest GPU means that the game is poorly optimized on purpose LMAO. Actually Nvidia users don't really care when Nvidia sponsored titles adopt FSR, we care when AMD sponsored titles won't adopt DLSS 🙂

Undying:

No wonder nvidia users are crying when game does not support it or have fsr instead 😀

that makes zero sense unless you mean that fsr is so bad that they'd rather skip the game what I don't understand is why having dlss is bad (nvidia) and not having it is good (amd) when the game runs like ass without it. it's not just nvidia users who need dlss apparently,it's both nvidia and amd.nvidia users are the ones to have it though. and 10-series is old at this point.and games are getting more demanding for no reason.look at valhalla.next gen my ass.it looks worse than unity and odyssey and somehow runs worse too.the only thing it does well is show absolutely unrealistic SAM results,being sponsored by AMD cause of course it is.but amd and ubisoft have a history of messing with numbers,look at fc5 benchmark being 90% water that was accelerated with fp16,then see actual gameplay comparisons and vega64 is getting crushed by 1080ti.

Denial:

Such a dumb take lol - there's been dozens of games over the years that look like crap and run horribly, but because now that DLSS it's a thing - suddenly "conspiracy" "must be nvidia paying studios to gimp their games to make DLSS look better". I feel like ancient aliens made everyone's brain rot or something.

don't pay attention to him he's been off his rocker lately. it's a hard time for an amd supporter when fsr is getting crushed by dlss and rx6000 series have gone awol months ago.gotta make stuff up. I hope when he accepts what he sees is indeed true he'll be back to his old,calm self. valhalla needs SAM to run acceptable framerates,an amd sponsored triple-A title just when they needed something to show against 30 series.No conspiracy there,of course 🙄 but show him a farming simulator and watch him go.

I'm surprised that Ubi switched side to AMD, I mean I still remember when they released a ''patch'' for Assassin's Creed 1 (or was it 2?) that blocked DX10 because AMD's Radeons HD 3000 were getting higher framerates than NVidia's GPU's. I played Origins and Odyssey, also Valhalla, I loved Origins the most, but Valhalla is close, I do think it looks better tho, maybe its 4k and HDR doing it, but I had those in older games too, maybe its just the setting that makes folks say it looks worse than older game, as Ancient Egypt and Greece were more beautiful as a setting than cold, mostly grey/green Nordic setting in AC Valhalla. Its weird that as AMD sponsored title it lacks support even for FSR, or even FX Fidelity Sharpening, which is odd.

lukas_1987_dion:

I'm surprised that Ubi switched side to AMD, I mean I still remember when they released a ''patch'' for Assassin's Creed 1 (or was it 2?) that blocked DX10 because AMD's Radeons HD 3000 were getting higher framerates than NVidia's GPU's.

never happened, AC1 always and continues to have D3D10 support iti was removed from later games because it provided little benefit but more work to keep the clients running without client specific issues.

Undying:

Its sad that farming simulator needs an upscaling. Nvidia this days...

Nvidia can pretty much do whatever they want at this point. Features take years before hitting halfway acceptable quality levels? No problem.

lukas_1987_dion:

I'm surprised that Ubi switched side to AMD, I mean I still remember when they released a ''patch'' for Assassin's Creed 1 (or was it 2?) that blocked DX10 because AMD's Radeons HD 3000 were getting higher framerates than NVidia's GPU's.

Lol AC1 had a DX10.1 mode specifically for radeon cards, nvidia cards had no support at that time

Passus:

Lol AC1 had a DX10.1 mode specifically for radeon cards, nvidia cards had no support at that time

His point is that Ubisoft removed the 10.1 driver path in patch 1.02 because they were getting higher performance and the game was a "The way it's meant to be played" title. Ubisoft claimed they were getting rendering errors with post-processing effects in the 10.1 mode and that's their reason for removing it, but no one could replicate those errors. Some people found lighting being slightly brighter and a few minor smoke effects missing with AA on but I'm sure those things could have been fixed. The performance difference was like 15% between the two paths on AMD cards.

That is correct, but why are we even talking about this? Btw. In the old days of PC gaming, expensive hardware quickly become unsuable after a few years and progress in graphics was rapid. Now we have 2020 consoles with featureset subpar of RTX Turing and get remasters or catastrophes like BF2042...

EngEd:

They tried to do it on Watch dogs: legion. They failed miserably. It is absolutely trash performance. Could be my old CPU, but other games that have DLSS gives a nice boost on 4K regardless of quality setting. Heck, even the HDR on PC version of their games is bad. Ubisoft could not care more about the problem. The patchs doesn't fix anything..

DLSS won't do anything when you're CPU bound -- WDL is a very heavy game on the CPU especially with Ubi's craptastic triple DRM implementation. For me I stopped buying Ubi games after testing purchased/official copies of Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Far Cry 5 against cracked copies that bypass the DRM and being blown away by how stuttery/hitchy the official copies were VS how smooth the cracked copies were (I own both in this case, I only opted for this route due to what I'd read regarding their DRM). In the official version of FC5 that game stutters for me every. single. time. that I pick up an item, Ubi needs to stop punishing paying customers.

BlindBison:

DLSS won't do anything when you're CPU bound -- WDL is a very heavy game on the CPU especially with Ubi's craptastic triple DRM implementation. For me I stopped buying Ubi games after testing purchased/official copies of Assassin's Creed Odyssey and Far Cry 5 against cracked copies that bypass the DRM and being blown away by how stuttery/hitchy the official copies were VS how smooth the cracked copies were (I own both in this case, I only opted for this route due to what I'd read regarding their DRM). In the official version of FC5 that game stutters for me every. single. time. that I pick up an item, Ubi needs to stop punishing paying customers.

Yes, it's denuvo. I know they are fixing bugs and updating denuvo, but every time denuvo gets an update to improve the algorithms our performance drops and we tend to blame Ubi or Nvidia, or AMD for bad drivers. The culprit is Ubi adding denuvo in the first place. I mean I get it, they want revenue, but still they should have made a better more optimized deal with some other DRM company. Consoles do not have this problem and for us PC gamers, this is not fair. Heck, you see what Ubi did in the last year? They made Ubisoft connect to let you pay for a monthly sub to play all of their games, just so gamers won't "leave" or boycott them for using denuvo in their games. They also favored AMD CPUs so it runs better on AMD systems.

Denial:

Some people found lighting being slightly brighter and a few minor smoke effects missing with AA on but I'm sure those things could have been fixed. The performance difference was like 15% between the two paths on AMD cards.

Specular was broken on 10.1 https://images.anandtech.com/galleries/118/Roof%204xAA%20Cleared%20-%20AC%20v1.02%20NVIDIA_large.jpg https://images.anandtech.com/galleries/118/Roof%204xAA%20Init%20-%20AC%20v1.00%20ATI_large.jpg 10.1 is faster because it removes a full rendering pass for antialiasing resolves, but community testing demonstrated it introduced a flaw with the lighting system that would have required a completely seperate reimplementation specific for 10.1 hardware and ubisoft isn't a company that provides great post release developer support.